- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-609/17: Action brought on 6 September 2017 — France v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0609
62017TN0609
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
13.11.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 382/49
(Case T-609/17)
(2017/C 382/61)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes certain export refunds paid by the French Republic in respect of the financial years 2011 to 2014;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission based its decision, for the most part, on purported serious failures by the French Republic to fulfil its obligations in the area of checks on the water content of frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds.
However, it is incorrect to assert that the French authorities have seriously failed to fulfil those obligations, having regard to the EU legislation and the enhanced measures that have been put in place since 2010. The analyses of the water content form part of the checks on the sound, fair and marketable quality of frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds that are carried out on the basis of Article 5(4) of Regulation No 1276/2008. According to the applicant, that provision does not require every physical check on frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds to include a laboratory analysis of the water content.
Thus, it considers that it was for the French authorities to determine the control measures to be taken, provided that those measures were proportionate having regard to the financial risk for the EAGF. In that regard, the applicant claims that the French authorities have put in place an ambitious scheme which takes that financial risk into account.